Matthew 20:1-21:17

Following the teaching on marriage and children in Matthew 19:1-15 the
rest of that chapter addresses the question of the cost of discipleship.
Jesus challenges the rich young ruler to sell all that he has, give to
the poor, and to come and follow him (verses 16-22). Jesus then gave the
saying that it would be harder for a rich person to enter the kingdom
than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (verses 24-26).
Then Peter raised the question of how the commitment he and the other
disciples had made would be recognized (verses 27-30). Concluding his
reply, Jesus stated in verse 30, "Many who are first will be last,
and the last will be first." These puzzling words, with the clauses
reversed will reappear in Matthew 20:16 at the conclusion of the parable
of the workers in the vineyard. Thus, this saying ties chapters 19 and
20 together around the theme of commitment and what it is worth to
follow Christ.

A Parable of the Vineyard -Matthew 20:1-16

Few parables of Jesus have been as misunderstood as the parable of the
workers in the vineyard. Francis Beare calls it "The Eccentric
Employer." The common reaction of modern Western readers is to denounce
the landowner as "unfair." In fact, when the parable is correctly
understood it answers Peter’s question in Matthew 19:27 though it does
so quite indirectly.

The parable reflects the economic conditions and practices of small
rural villages in Galilee at the time of Jesus. Most of the property was
owned by wealthy landowners who leased land to tenants to farm. The
landowner would keep a large section of the best farmland for himself.
Though he would have owned servants, the labor demands were seasonal.
Only during planting and harvest would he need to hire additional
workers. Tenant farmers who had already brought in their small harvest
and the unemployed would gather early each morning in the village
marketplace hoping a wealthy landowner would need harvest help. If the
landowners came by and they were not hired these would-be workers would
go to the next village marketplace hoping for a job later in the day.
The standard day’s wage was a denarius.

So, when the landowner agreed with the first workers for the usual
daily wage they were expecting a denarius. When the workers hired later
in the day agreed to work for "whatever is right" they expected some
proportionate fraction of a denarius. It was also customary to pay the
workers at the end of the day. Many were so poor that the denarius
enabled them to buy flour on their way home from which would be baked
the bread they would eat the next day.

The literary skill of Jesus as a parable teller also appears in this
parable. The opening verses of the parable exactly reflect the way of
life in Galilee at that time. Listeners would have nodded in agreement
at each detail of the parable as Jesus told of the hiring of workers and
the agreements that the landowner made with each group. Even the fact
that the manager had the job of paying the workers was part of the
customs of that time. The familiarity of all these details enticed the
listeners into the story. Everything was so familiar that they became
emotionally involved in and committed to this story.

The first "clue" of the surprise ending came when the landowner ordered
the manager to pay first those who had come to work last. The custom was
to pay those who had worked all day first so they could go home first
since they would be the most tired. Thus, this unusual instruction
alerts the listener to pay close attention. When those who had "signed
on" at the last hour received a full day’s pay, a denarius, a murmur
passed through the crowd of Jesus’ listeners. What would the rest be
paid if those who worked only one hour received the full reward?

Here we see Jesus’ purpose in having the landowner order the manager to
pay those first. Everyone will see and will wonder. Everyone will see
and will develop their own expectations of what the rest of the workers
should be paid. By constructing the parable so that all the workers are
paid the same, Jesus pushes every listener into a response. The nature
of the response reveals a great deal about the heart of the listener.
Will they rejoice with the workers who received a full day’s pay for one
hour’s work or will they grumble with the workers who complained?

Verses 13-15 explain the viewpoint of the landowner. He has done no
wrong. The workers who worked all day received the denarius for which
they had agreed. Everybody else received more, in some cases much more,
than they had expected. No one received less than he had expected. As
owner, the landowner had the right to be generous with some if he
wished. Only the most perverse logic would refuse him that right.

In its original historical setting in the ministry of Jesus, the
parable spoke specifically of the generosity of God’s grace. Christ may
well have first spoken it in response to Pharisees and scribes who
objected to his (Jesus’) invitation to the sinners and tax collectors to
enter the kingdom. From that original historical context, we learn
important lessons about God and about grace. None of us deserve the
benefits of the kingdom. Others have worked longer and harder than we
have. Some have suffered incredible persecution, but the reward of the
heavenly banquet is offered to all without regard to our work(s) or the
price we have paid to be part of the kingdom.

While all of that is true, in the context of Matthew’s gospel there is
another function of the parable. That is to answer Peter’s question in
Matthew 19:27.Peter had first made a claim and then asked his question.
The claim was, "We have left everything and followed you." The
question was essentially, "What reward are we going to get for our
special loyalty and love?" Peter’s assumption is that he and the other
disciples deserved a greater reward because of the greatness of their
commitment to Christ. Jesus’ reply makes it clear that God does not
judge based on what is deserved, but on the basis of grace.

Peter’s question shows that he had not understood the parable of the
unforgiving servant. The parable of the workers in the vineyard gave him
another chance to comprehend the incredible grace that characterizes the
kingdom of God and characterizes God himself. The saying with the
reversed clauses in Matthew 19:30 and 20:16 mark the boundaries of the
parable. The saying also reveals the mind-boggling reversal of values
that is part of the kingdom of God.

Third Passion Prediction -Matthew 20:17-28

The journey to Jerusalem has been under way for some time. Matthew 19:1
recorded the beginning of that journey. Now Jesus repeats the brief
prediction of what lay ahead for him in Jerusalem: suffering,
harassment, and death. The first such prediction of his passion had been
given in Matthew 16:21. Peter had completely missed the point of Jesus’
saying and had rebuked him forcefully. The second prediction is recorded
in Matthew 17:22-23 and the disciples were distressed.

Now we find the third prediction of Jesus’ death. In comparison with
the first two predictions, this third (and final) prediction is marked
by more details. For the first time Jesus states that he will be
"condemned." This word envisions both the trial of Jesus and the formal
rejection of him by his own Jewish people. For the first time, Jesus
mentions that he will be handed over to the "Gentiles." This is another
way of saying that Romans will carry out his death sentence. Thus, it is
not surprising, though this is the first time Jesus mentions it, that he
will be mocked, scourged, and crucified. Those elements were standard
procedure with the Roman sentence of death by crucifixion. Lest the
disciples have any doubt, Jesus’ forthcoming death will not be one of
"glorious martyrdom, but an ugly, sordid butchery." (France, p. 291)

What is missing from the previous announcements of his death is the
note that this horrible death "must" happen. Jesus is no longer
attempting to persuade the disciples. Rather, they are on the journey to
Jerusalem with him; he is simply informing them of what lies ahead. For
Jesus, part of being first means leadership on the way to the cross,
which is the fate of those who quite literally are last. The reversal of
values that Jesus was teaching in chapter 19 and in the parable of the
workers in the vineyard is illustrated by the way he accepted and
embraced the cross. On the other hand, the fact that he will be raised
after the third day points to reversal by which the last (those
condemned to the cross) become first again.

As happened at the first passion prediction Jesus’ announcement is
followed by an inappropriate response from the disciples. In Matthew 16,
the inappropriate response had come from Peter. Here it comes from James
and John who use their mother to request the highest positions in the
coming kingdom. Jesus had promised that the disciples would sit on
twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. James and John
aspired to the top thrones.

It is possible to understand the role of their mother in two different
ways. Some see her request as less shameful than having the sons make
the request directly. After all, she had not received all the teaching
that they had received. On the other hand, one can see her role as
exposing both the weakness and the hypocrisy of the sons of Zebedee.
Women were not highly regarded in the ancient world. For James and John
to stoop to have their mother make their request reveals the pitiful
lack of initiative and backbone on their part. Despite the low view of
women generally in that culture, the theme of a manipulative mother
scheming for power and prestige for her sons was common in ancient
literature. However, such women were not regarded positively, nor were
their weak-willed sons.

Jesus’ response was directed to the two sons. Four points emerge in
verses 22-23. First, Jesus states that the two brothers "do not know
what [they] are asking." In a kingdom marked by the reversal
of human values, the positions of honor are quite different from the
normal human expectations. Second, Jesus asks if they are able to "drink
the cup that I am about to drink." The Old Testament contains
numerous references to the "cup" as a metaphor for a destiny of
suffering. (See Isaiah 51:17 and 22; Jeremiah 25:17-29; and Ezekiel
23:31-34 for examples.) By the time Matthew’s narrative reaches the
Garden of Gethsemane the full meaning of the "cup" that Jesus was
about to drink becomes clear. The sons of Zebedee confidently claim
their ability to drink that cup. This led to Jesus’ third point. In
fact, they will drink of the same cup of suffering. Acts 12:2 records
James’ death for the sake of Christ and tradition mentions imprisonment,
exile, and being boiled in oil as part of the price John would
ultimately pay for his faith. However, regardless of their willingness
to drink the same cup of suffering, the glory of kingdom honors is not
given to Jesus to bestow. That most delightful duty of the final
judgment is reserved to God the Father. In affirmation of God’s
omniscience Jesus states that God has already prepared those positions
in anticipation of that great day.

Jesus’ response to James and John appears gentle but firm. He will not
allow them (or their mother) to entangle him in a scheme where the
self-centered values of this world prevail. The other ten disciples are
less charitable. Their response upon discovering the scheme of James and
John is anger. The context makes it clear that it was not righteous
indignation, but raw jealousy that occasioned their anger. Their hearts
were not more pure than James and John; rather they were upset that the
sons of Zebedee had beaten them to the punch.

Their indignant response provided a further teaching opportunity for
Jesus. He pointed out what they already knew quite well. This world
operates on the basis of power, prestige and status. However, verse 26
proclaims, "It will not be so among you." To be a follower of
Jesus is to renounce the schemes of self-advancement, status and power
that are so common in our world. Rather, spiritual leadership involves
servanthood. The reversal of values alluded to in the strange saying of
the first being last and the last being first must be lived out in
Christian relationships. First among followers of Jesus are those who
become slaves to all the rest.

If that were not clear enough, in verse 28 Jesus reminded the disciples
of his own mission. He had not come to be served but to serve. Then,
using the language of Isaiah 53 he points to his forthcoming death. He
will give his life as a ransom for many.

Healing the Blind Men - Matthew 20:29-34

The healing of the blind men on the outskirts of Jericho has often
generated more questions than most miracle stories in the gospels. In
terms of the literary flow of Matthew’s gospel this story occurs at the
exact same place in Jesus’ ministry as the healing of blind Bartimaeus
recorded in Mark 10:46-52. Whether this is a separate incident or
Matthew simply doubled the number of beneficiaries of the miracle has
been strongly debated.

Also, Matthew himself has already told the story of the healing of two
blind men in Matthew 9:27-31 in which the dialogue is almost identical
to that found here. The question of the relationship of these two very
similar healings has not been completely solved by biblical scholars.

Unfortunately, these questions have often caused scholars to miss some
important insights from this paragraph. First, like Mark, Matthew seems
to be thinking of the way this miracle could apply in the spiritual
realm. Verse 34 states that the blind men followed Jesus immediately
upon receiving their sight. Thus, part of the issue is the meaning of
discipleship. James and John had proven to be blind in their
understanding of the reversed values of the kingdom. Now we find healing
grace for spiritual blindness in the word of Jesus.

Further, Daniel Patte (p. 284) points out two sets of contrast that
mark Matthew’s narration of this healing story. First, there is a
contrast between the two blind men who are crying out for help and the
crowd that wants them to be silent. Second, in contrast to the crowd
that rebukes the blind men, Jesus calls them. These contrasts are
instructive for disciples who are following Jesus on the way to the
cross. The way of discipleship is always in contrast to the crowd. That
is one of the results of the reversal of values that characterizes the
followers of Jesus. However, the opposition of the crowd can never be
the determining factor for a disciple. Rather, it is the call of Jesus
that invites us out of the crowd and into the kingdom.

These insights into discipleship from the healing of the two blind men
are particularly important because of the position of this story. This
is the final event of Jesus’ ministry that Matthew will tell before his
entry into Jerusalem and the beginning of Passion Week. As his ministry
began in Matthew 4:18-22 with the calling of disciples, it comes to its
climax still calling disciples.

The Triumphal Entry - Matthew 21:1-11

Jesus’ "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem is extremely important by every
measure that can be applied to it. Historically, it marked a very
significant point in Jesus’ life and ministry. From that point on there
was no turning back from the destiny God had prepared for him in
Jerusalem. From a literary viewpoint the entry into Jerusalem stands as
a pivot point in all four gospels. Theologically the entry enabled the
gospel writers to proclaim truth about Jesus that could not be as
effectively communicated in any other way.

Matthew’s account focuses on the question of Jesus’ identity. This has
often been his literary strategy at turning points in his gospel. The
issue is most directly raised by the city of Jerusalem that asks in
verse 11, "Who is this?" Though the crowds (presumably from
Galilee) answer in verse 12, "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth
in Galilee," the careful reader has already learned much more about
Jesus from the earlier verses in this account.

The story begins as Jesus and his entourage arrive at Bethphage, an
eastern suburb of Jerusalem. Jesus directs two of his disciples to go
ahead to the next village (perhaps Bethany) to find a donkey that can be
used for Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. Though Matthew has abbreviated the
account from Mark, the emphasis still lies on either Jesus’ divine
foreknowledge of the available donkey or the arrangements that he had
previously made.

It is the donkey that is the key to understanding Jesus’ identity here,
however. Garland notes (p. 209) that this is not a "triumphal entry"
since there is no white horse, no trophies, no military language or
imagery. Rather, this is a "royal entry." "The heir of David who was to
be anointed as king rode a donkey to his coronation." That was true of
Solomon (1 Kings 1:32-40) who gained David’s throne as well as others
who sought it like Absalom (2 Samuel 18:9) and Mephibosheth (2 Samuel
19:27). With unmistakable symbolism, Jesus lays claim to being the
authentic Son of David coming to Jerusalem to be anointed as the
messianic king.

Matthew highlights this understanding by noting the way in which this
"royal entry" fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. There Scripture
itself identifies the coming king as one who will ride a donkey. The
emphasis on the donkey is common to all four gospels, but Matthew shifts
to mention both the donkey and a colt of a donkey. (In fact, verse 7
states that Jesus rode on both animals at once.) Most scholars believe
that the mention of both animals arises from the quotation from
Zechariah though there is little agreement as to why Matthew found the
references to both the donkey and its colt to be important. An early
Christian debater (Justin Martyr, about A.D. 150) thought the donkey
symbolized Jesus’ ministry to the Jews while the colt symbolized his
ministry to the Gentiles who had not yet been "tamed" by submission to
the Law. Garland (pp. 210-211) suggests the donkey symbolized Jesus’
royal identity as king of Israel. The colt symbolized Jesus’ identity as
the suffering servant described in Isaiah 53. Cementing the sense of
Jesus’ identity as the true messianic king, the crowds began singing
from Psalm 118. This psalm had originated as a royal psalm to celebrate
the enthronement of the king. Though Jerusalem did not know who Jesus
was, the reader can have no doubt.

Cleansing the Temple - Matthew 21:12-17

The entry into Jerusalem turned directly to an entry into the temple
area. Jesus encountered and evicted those buying, selling, and changing
money in the temple area. In a single verse (12), Matthew sums up the
cleansing of the temple. The most detailed account appears in John
2:13-22. Each of the gospel writers has his own understanding of the
significance of this action that is revealed by slight nuances of
language. Matthew’s view seems to be that Jesus was proclaiming the
failure and thus the end of the sacrificial system of worship at the
temple. There is no suggestion here for the popular modern view that
Jesus was offended by the dishonesty of those selling animals and
changing money. Rather, Jesus threw out both the buyers and the sellers
and he rid the temple area of the money exchangers necessary for temple
worship as it was then practiced. His appeal in verse 13 is that the
temple be a house of prayer. For at least a day, Jesus had made it
impossible to be a place of sacrifice.

Further, verse 14 states that the blind and the lame came to him in the
temple and he healed them there. Such handicapped persons had been
denied access to the temple by the decree of David in 2 Samuel 5:8. Now
David’s greater son restores to such ones access to the house of prayer.
(No wonder verse 15 notes that the priests were angry.) In response to
the priestly complaint, Jesus quoted Psalm 8:2 that God had prepared
praise for himself from such ones. Then, having accomplished enough for
one day he returned to Bethany to spend the night. Because of all that
happened that day, the world would never be the same again.

Study Questions for Reflection and Discussion

These readings and study questions are in preparation
for next week's lesson.

As you study each day ask the Lord to help you understand the
Scriptures and to apply its meaning to your own heart and life.

First Day: Read the notes on Matthew 20:1-21:17.
Look up the Scripture
references given.

1. Identify one or two new insights that seemed important to you. Why
are they important?

2. Is there a spiritual truth in this section that is especially
significant for you? Write it down and explain why it is important for
you.

3. Write a brief prayer asking God to heal you of any spiritual
blindness in your life. Ask him to enable you to both understand and
live out the reversed values of the kingdom of God.

Second Day: Read Matthew 21:12-32.
Now focus on Matthew
21:18-27.

1. How does the placement of the "cursing" of the fig tree right after
the cleansing of the temple provide insight into its meaning? Even if
the event literally took place what it symbolic meaning does it have in
this context?

2. What lesson about prayer does Jesus draw from the "cursing" of the
fig tree? How does this teaching on prayer still relate to the cleansing
of the temple story and Jesus’ authority over the temple?

3. What does the question of verse 23 reveal about the chief priests
and elders? What has been their role in chapter 21 thus far? In what
ways could we be in danger of falling into a pattern like theirs?

Third Day: Read Matthew 21:18-44.
Focus in on Matthew
21:23-32.

1. Why do you think Jesus refused to answer the question of the chief
priests and elders about the source of his authority? Would it have been
helpful had he answered the question? If so who would have been helped?

2. How does the parable of the two sons relate to the question of
whether Jesus should answer the authority question posed by the chief
priests and elders? For whom does Jesus ultimately have authority?

3. What role does John the Baptist play in the two paragraphs (the
question of authority and the parable of the two sons)? How did the
combination of the ministries of Jesus and John the Baptist create a
problem for the chief priests? What warning of spiritual danger is there
for us in the problem they had with Jesus and John?

1. What elements in the parable of the vineyard might cause you to
think that Jesus was telling it about the Jewish leaders and their
opposition to him and his ministry? What "threat" does the parable make
to the Jewish leaders of that day?

2. Verse 42 quotes from Psalm 118:22-23. Read Psalm 118:19-27. What
elements of the Psalm passage relate to Christ? How does Jesus use the
Psalm quotation to support his identity and his argument?

3. Read Romans 9:32-33 and 1 Peter 2:4-8 carefully, along with verses
42 and 44 in the focus verses of Matthew 21. How does the New Testament
compare Jesus to a stone? Which of these comparisons is most meaningful
to you? Why?

1. What elements in the parable(s) of Matthew 22:2-14 seem to apply to
the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time? How do verses 45 and 46 of chapter 21
help prepare the way for our understanding of the following parable(s)?

2. What elements in the parable(s) of Matthew 22:2-14 have important
application for our lives today? What is that application that is
important for us?

3. What is the point of verses 11-14? In other words, if the parable
stopped at verse 10, what would you understand to be its main point? How
is that modified by verses 11-14?

Sixth Day: Read Matthew 22:1-22.
Now focus on Matthew
22:15-22.

1. Do you think Jesus intended to support the paying of taxes to Caesar
or to oppose the paying of taxes to Caesar in his response given in
verse 21? Why? How do you think his message should be applied today?

2. How do the Pharisees and Herodians describe Jesus in verse 16? Do
you think they were being sincere or sarcastic? Why? To what degree can
those words be applied to believers in our time? Should they apply?

3. Write a brief prayer asking the Lord to grant you grace and wisdom
when you are under fire like the grace and wisdom demonstrated by Jesus
in these verses. What changes in your life do you want along these
lines?